hitops

There was a rumor that Trudeau would try to shut down personal professional corps. No idea how that was supposed to work in reality. Looks like they gave up on that.

In this analogy, are you the moldy sandwich?

It doesn't work that way. Using AB as an example, when prices are high, royalties are much higher by percentage than when prices are low, at which point royalties can drop to nothing. This means the price of oil has a much sharper effect on the royalty revenues for government than on industry profits. Basically corporate revenues are like a stock that rises and falls proportionally with the price of oil. Government royalties are like a highly leveraged derivative of that stock, moving more exponentially relative to the fortunes of the stock.

It was way under priced for what it cost to make. Also low range and ugly as sin. GM cancelled it, likely because they knew nobody would buy it at a price to be profitable. Most likely yes. I can't even tell what environmentalists want anymore. Many of their actions seem counter-productive to the goal of preserving the environment.

Good point, all those judges got to those positions because of a lifetime of handouts. Oh wait, they didn't.

Quite right. I mean, there are whole sections of foreign political parties or foreign governments that support religious violence. Whole infrastructures, schools, chemical and engineering labs. Large swaths of populations who celebrate or defend those actions. Many websites promoting, millions of 'regular' Muslims on twitter and facebook groups cheering and encouraging it. Then some kook get drunk and shoots at his local office about something, claims he believes the bible, is immediately denounced by literally everybody of same religion, and we're told 'all religions are violent'. This degree of this false equivocation is beyond anything you can find on any topic.

Handouts have many more names than just treaties. What name you prefer is beside the point. Cocaine also has many names. I can't think of any that make it good though.

Ya it's worse. Federal debt damages everyone in the country, not just a single debtor. And how's that going to work exactly? If we just believe hard enough? Ya 2008-09 and the aftermath. Ah the 'good times'.

Even if $2 billion was true (it is not), no, it is peanuts compared to the size of the industry, and more than made up in revenues captured by government. Why do you think budget fortunes (federal, AB, SK and NB) rise and fall with the price of oil? The true cost without any subsidy, would be a few pennies more per liter. The true cost of removing subsidies to alternative, is that those industries cease to exist.

CO2 levels have nothing to do with breathable air. We could 10X the CO2 in the air, and you would not notice. Air pollution (particulates) and CO2 emission/climate change are completely separate issues.

More substantial handouts does not = helps. Often it makes things worse. Some politicians are fine with that, a permanent dependent class is sometimes useful for votes.

You'll have to clarify. What is the one thing? What book? I'm not arguing about variations. You can find variations about anything, with any number of people believing anything. I'm arguing on the basis of their scriptural texts, in order to having something static to evaluate rather than just attacking strawmen and guessing what 'most' or 'many' might believe. From the teachings (Koran) and actions/life (Hadith) of Mohammed, it is easy to make the case for terror. From the same of Christ (new testament), it is difficult if not impossible. The fact that some/many Christians live totally unlike Christ, and some/many Muslims totally unlike Mohammed, is quite beside the point. Imaging sending selected terrorists back in time. An ISIS member would be at home with Mohammed and his closest friends/ranking members. An LRA member would have no common ground with the disciples of Christ. If you're a disenchanted young guy with an axe to grind, it's not hard to get from 'cut off the heads of the unbelievers" of the Koran, to actually doing so. But the same guy has a hard time getting there from "love your enemy, do good to those who hate you". Could be, but how does this relate to any arguments about doctrine supporting/negating violence?

Two guys quoting Jewish scripture is not an argument against Christian doctrine. If you are trying to make an argument about Christian teachings, you should refer to those teachings.

Pretty much any murder fits into that definition. Latimer might be an exception.

Because it is said in sound mind, with millions who sympathize or outwardly support the same view. Along with an entire infrastructure devoted to exactly the same thing, including perfectly sane educated people who use that education to make bombs.

Give your definition of terrorism. Please think about whether routine murders in the hood would qualify under it, and modify as necessary. The 'accomplished' part of this, refers to Christ's coming, according to anyone I have ever heard talk about it. Do Christian eat pork? Pretty much every non-vegetarian one I know does. Ergo, Jewish law is not followed. Regardless, the message being conveyed in the passage you quoted actually has nothing to do with old testament law. It was Jesus telling people that his purpose was not a Judaism-destruction operation, but rather the completion of it.

I appreciate that you view is somewhat nuanced. At least not the usual 'well all religions do it' false equivocation. Look at the top 20 conflicts worldwide, and how many involved involve self-described religiously-motivated actors. 'They all do it' when describing Muslims vs Christians (or others) is a lot like saying a crime has happen in Tokyo, and therefore Tokyo is like inner-city Detroit because 'crime happens everywhere'.

Feel free to quote examples. We can try to apply the various definitions of terrorism. It's possible some might apply. Christians might be perceived as hearing voices by many, the question is do those voices attributed to God by them, result in terror attacks? And, why do those voices also seem to motivate massive numbers of positive things like hospitals and schools and social support organization all over the developed world, on a scale not matched even remotely by any other 'voice-hearing' system? To the best of my knowledge, what you are referring to is old testament. The main figurehead in Christianity is Christ, who's teachings are found in the new testament. Feel free to indicate where you think a person would be justified based on that. There is a difference between having some personal or marginal or cultural belief system, and doing bad stuff, vs doing bad stuff specifically because said belief system motivated one to do it, according to that person.

One doesn't, nor has anyone claimed they do. To be a terrorist, your primary motivation is to cause terror and kill people. It is usually intended to be as large scale as possible, with concern over whom the victims are, as long as there are many and it makes an impact or political statement. Usually lack of concern for the consequences to yourself. It also involved a religious motivation. The perpetrator citing the religion directly as the inspiration for their actions, is a good indicator. A disproportionate number of murders in Canada are by aboriginals (also usually the victims). Many have cultural-based religious beliefs. I don't call them terrorists, because nobody is trying to take out a large group of Canadians 'in the name of' some native entity or spiritual being. It is just regular crime. Same with most other people in Canada committing crimes. Many adhere to a religion, many not. Unless they aim to cause terror/carnage and/or cite their religion as a motivation, I don't call them terrorists.

The Asian guy to my knowledge did have a scripture or doctrine he was following, nor any ideological support base anywhere here or elsewhere that would cheer such a thing. Islamic terrorists do, even while many condemn them. The prophet Mohammed was either spoken to by God, or heard voices. You pick. Muslims believe he is the guy to emulate. He took out a lot of people.

I'd call him a Christian terrorist. The difference is that those are exceptionally hard to find. You can't find any group of any size, or any doctrinal support believed by any plurality of Christians that supports that. In contrast, you can easily find those things in the worldwide Muslim community, and most importantly, in their scriptures. This is why the debate rages in Muslim circles (many for, many against), but not in Christian ones (99% would condemn). It is extremely hard to make arguments from NT scripture for things like that, and relatively easy to do so from the Koran and hadiths. Is is really tough to make the call on Christians who do terrorism-ish (definitions vary) things, because unlike the Muslim community, there is no organized group of any impact fostering that mentality, and no logistical support base for planning, etc. The target also matters. The cases I can think of involving Christian attacking things are usually politically sensitive, or in one case the IRS....things that are strike more of a personal grudge than grand religions vision. In contrast, most Muslims who make the news doing bad things, just pick something for maximum carnage. This is more the definition of terrorism.

Two points: 1) One billion is almost nothing compared to the size of the industry and the amount energy delivered per Canadian. The subsidy per user or per unit energy for alternative, is enormous in comparison. A good analogy is thus: You want to subsidize cars, so you decide to give $10 to every ford owner and $100 to every Ferrari owner. Which one is bigger? Using the logic of your argument, the ford subsidy is bigger because there are far more fords, so that total is going to be far larger. In reality, the subsidy to Ferrari owners is 10x as large. 2) The $46 billion number is, from an articled linked to that one "The lion's share...are uncollected taxes on the externalized costs...includ[ing] impacts like traffic accidents, carbon emissions, air pollution and road congestion." This is just nonsense frankenaccounting. It is not even an actual tax break, it is the perceived level of what taxation should be (based on nothing but opinion of the authors), compared to what it is, with the conclusion being 'a subsidy'. That is like if I just decided that gluten free foods should be taxed at 40%, and since they are currently taxed at usually nothing (like most foods), I conclude they have a massive subsidy. Makes sense? Nope. Car accidents? Congestion? Are you kidding me? As if, if all cars were morphed into Teslas, there would be no accidents or congestion? Give me a break, this is not a serious argument. You could basically use this same logic and just think of anything you don't like about anything, and conclude that because there is no tax levied on those things you don't like, it is subsidized.

Tim is quite right, it is you who don't know the facts jacee. Your article proves exactly his point, that subsidies on this side of the ocean are almost nothing relative to the size of the industry. The vast majority of the world's dollar amount of oil production subsidies is among developing countries. The major difference, is that alternative energies effectively don't exist without subsidies, whereas if oil subsidies were gone, you would notice either no change or a few pennies per L higher prices. If you gave alternative energy the exact same dollars in subsidy per unit of energy produced (or per unit of energy delivered to consumer), alternative energy (other than nuclear and hydro) in it's present state would disappear, because that would be nowhere close to enough to survive on.

Only 3 times what was predicted. Truly competent leadership.

Being denounced by other Muslims and kicked out of some mosques has nothing to do whether it is Islamic terrorism. And no, he did not just say 'Allah'. Per police, he said "Allah told me to come and kill people". If you don't accept that as Islamic motivation, then do tell, what is? The prophet Mohammed did exactly this kind of stuff, btw. So if not him, than who exactly represents 'legitimate' Islam? Because we believe we can mitigate some factors that contribute to crime. But we cannot mitigate a person who is motivated outside those factors, who kills based on something other than their own self-perceived interest.